This book represents one of the
most exhaustive treatments of John’s Gospel and letters from the standpoint of
Biblical Theology. It is the first installation in a series entitled, Biblical Theology of the New Testament,
which shall be comprised of eight large volumes and of which Dr.
Kostenberger is the series editor (26). The yet-undisclosed author of each volume has written at least one commentary or major monograph related
to their field of study. Andreas Kostenberger fills this criterion abundantly,
having written a commentary on John, a book on John’s theology of missions,
co-authored a book on John’s Trinitarian theology, and numerous other
monographs and articles. The result is a thorough treatment of the Apostle
John’s contribution to New Testament Biblical Theology that is without peer in
its field, written by a conservative scholar with an evident and refreshing devotion
to Jesus Christ, who honors the divine authorship and authority of Scripture. The
book is actually larger than it appears to be due to its irregular textbook
size, thus addressing its subject matter in exhaustive fashion. This monumental
work ought to serve as a benchmark for studies in Johanine theology for years
to come, including up to date scholarly discussions along with rich material
that will assist ministers in preaching through John’s Gospel and Letters.

Each author is the series is
charged with presenting “a survey of recent scholarship and of the state of
research, a treatment of the relevant introductory issues, a thematic
commentary following the narrative flow of the document(s), a treatment of
important individual themes, [and] a discussion of the relationship between
particular writings and the rest of the New Testament and the Bible” (26). This
series aims to provide a model “showing how Biblical Theology ought to be
conducted” as well. Kostenberger follows this stated purpose closely, dividing
his material into four major parts, sixteen chapters, and thirty-five sections.

Part I addresses the
“historical framework for Johanine theology,” which includes a brief statement
of the state of scholarship in relation John’s writings in the field of
Biblical Theology, including a capable defense of Johanine authorship and the
historical setting of his Gospel and letters (ch. 1, pp. 37-100. The book of
Revelation shall be dealt with in a separate volume in this series). His
bibliography (pp. 568-614) is impressive and demonstrates the extent of
research lying behind Kostenberger’s text. Part II treats “literary foundations
for Johanine theology,” including genre, style, vocabulary, literary devices,
and structure (chs. 2-3, pp. 101-174). This is followed by a highly insightful
literary-theological reading of John’s Gospel and letters (chs. 4 and 5,
respectively, pp. 175-272). Part III focuses upon “major themes in Johanine
theology.” It by far the largest section of the work and delves into Biblical
Theology proper. This heading addresses John’s worldview and use of (Old
Testament) Scripture (ch. 6, pp. 273-310), the importance of the seven “signs”
for interpreting John’s Gospel (ch. 7, pp. 311-335), the relationship between
Jesus as the divine Word and creation/new creation (ch. 8, pp. 336-354), John’s
Trinitarianism (ch. 9, pp. 355-402), the place of John’s writings in the
unfolding plan of redemptive history (ch. 10, pp. 403-435), the “cosmic trial
motif” (ch. 11, pp. 436-456), the constitution of the New Messianic community
as a replacement of Israel with a treatment of divine election and human
responsibility (ch. 12. pp. 457-508), “the Johanine love ethic” (ch. 13, pp.
509-524), “John’s theology of the cross” as both a revelation of God and as a substitutionary atonement (ch.
14, pp. 525-538), and “John’s Trinitarian mission theology” (ch. 15, pp.
539-546). Part IV, which closes the work, relates the findings of Johanine
theology to the remainder of the New Testament (ch. 16, pp. 547-565). This is
followed by a brief conclusion (pp. 566-567). This brief survey indicates the
breadth and scope of this book at a glance.

Any review of such an extensive
work must of necessity be limited in scope. For this reason, this author shall
single out some noteworthy features as well as a few critical observations. First,
Kostenberger’s treatment of John’s presentation of the Triune nature of God is
very insightful, particularly in light of the contemporary resurgence of
interest in Trinitarianism. Trinitarian references pervade the book and the
author consistently demonstrates the manner in which John presented his Gospel
in terms of all three Persons of the Godhead. For example, the important
Johanine concepts of “truth” (p. 288) and “glory” (p. 295) are rooted in the
revelation of all three Persons, both together and distinctly. In addition to
this pervasive emphasis, chapters nine and fifteen explore this topic in its
own right. The former addresses allusions to the Shema and Jewish monotheism in
John’s Gospel, followed by a discussion of the nature and function of each
divine Person distinctly both in respect to being and to economy in the
revelation and work of redemption. Kostenberger’s treatment of God the Father
is more full than most and it serves as the basis of the interrelationship of
the three Persons as well as the corresponding relationship between the Triune
God and believers (370-379). Chapter fifteen, “John’s Trinitarian mission
theology,” makes the important point that the overarching goal of John’s
Trinitarianism is to establish the pattern and the necessity of the mission of
the Christian Church to an unbelieving world. Just as the Father sent the Son
into a hostile and unbelieving world so that whosoever believes should not
perish but have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16), so Jesus sends His disciples into
the same world with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (who is sent by the
Father and the Son) in order to spread His Gospel. While the mission of Christ
is both unique and foundational, it provides a pattern for the subsequent
mission of the Church, which has the privilege of extending the message of
salvation to all at the initiative of the Triune God (pp. 539-546).

Second, the section treating
the importance of Jesus’ “signs” for the proper interpretation of John’s Gospel
yield fruitful insights. While most scholars are agree as to the importance of
the major “signs” in John’s Gospel, there is no consensus regarding the number
of those signs. While six great “signs” are agreed upon (i.e., changing water
into wine, healing the nobleman’s son, healing the lame man, feeding the
multitude, healing the blind man, and the raising of Lazarus), some, such as
Leon Morris, make Jesus’ walking on water a seventh sign, whereas others, such
as D.A. Carson, include the resurrection as the greatest sign of all (324).
Kostenberger argues that the primary problem is one of definition. Building
upon the foundation of the Old Testament, he argues that signs are not
necessarily to be equated with miracles, but that they “function to
authenticate the divine messengers” (325). Based upon this fact, he proposes
three criteria for Johanine signs: they must be public works of Jesus, they
must be explicitly identified as “signs” in John’s Gospel, and they reveal the
glory of God in Jesus “as God’s authentic representative” (326-327).For this reason, he suggests that the temple
clearing of chapter two should be included as the seventh sign, since it meets
all three criteria (333). Walking on water, while miraculous, is ruled out
because it was neither public nor was it referred to as a “sign.” Jesus’
resurrection is not a “sign,” but rather the thing that is signified by the
resurrection of Lazarus. The importance of including the temple clearing among
the Johanine “signs” is that points to the fact that Jesus replaces the Jewish
temple as God’s divine representative and that Jesus has now become the central
“location” or focus of divine worship (333-335). This notion blends together
well with the author’s assertion that part of the purpose of the Gospel of John
was an effective evangelistic appeal to Jews following the destruction of their
temple in AD 70 after hope of rebuilding had been abandoned (60-72).

Third, Kostenberger includes a
masterful discussion of John’s salvation-historical perspective in chapter ten.
With heavy dependence on John’s use of Old Testament events, imagery, and
festal symbolism, he demonstrates that John held together the unity of biblical
revelation and redemptive history as culminated in the Person and work of
Christ (esp. pp. 403, 422). He notes that this “is at best a minority position”
in present scholarship (403). Nevertheless, the weight of evidence presented in
this chapter is decisive and it ought to serve as a starting point for future
discussions of this important theme. This chapter expands the idea of Jesus as
the replacement of the Jewish temple as well (422-435).

This reviewer’s criticism of
this masterful work shall be reduced to a single head that highlights the
potentially inherent limitations of Biblical Theology as a discipline. While
being vital to biblical interpretation, mere exegesis and Biblical Theology can
have unintended negative consequences. Exegesis explains biblical data in
individual contexts. Biblical Theology expands this process by summarizing the
findings of biblical data with respect to a particular book or collection of
books from Scripture. However, failing to draw systematic conclusions from this
data, which is admittedly beyond the scope of Biblical Theology to some extent,
often results in ambiguity or potential error. For instance, chapter nine
(“God: Father, Son, and Spirit), in spite of all of the strengths mentioned
above, is an inadequate presentation of the Triune nature of God. It is not
incorrect or unorthodox, but it is liable to various interpretations due to its
failure formulate a systematic definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. The
author clearly establishes the fact that Jewish monotheism is the foundation of
John’s theology, that each of the Three Persons is treated as divine, and that
interrelationship between the Persons with the resultant economic order of
operation is irreversible. This fails to rule out historical heresies such as
Modalism, in which each of the three Persons are divine and follow as distinct
economic order of operation in history, yet which denies the reality of three
distinct personal subsistences (although the distinction of Persons is
vindicated somewhat on pp. 541-543). It could be demonstrated that Modalism is
contrary to the data of the Gospel of John, but not without making further
distinctions and theological definitions that are of necessity derived from
Systematic and Historical Theology. Kostenberger seems to recognize this fact
implicitly by his very use of the term “Trinity,” which is not Johanine but
originated with the early Church father, Tertullian.

A similar problem exists in
Kostenberger’s treatment of election, the new birth, and faith. He maintains
first that election in John precedes faith, and that it is not based upon even
a foreseen faith (458). Then, he asserts that the new birth follows and results
from faith (460). Next, he argues that the statement regarding being drawn to
the Christ in John six refers to predestination (461), which both implicitly
contradicts his earlier statements concerning election and predestination as
the eternal plan of God and confuses predestination with what is ordinarily
referred to as “effectual calling.” In the following discussion, he notes that
the Holy Spirit “moves a person to faith in Christ” (462) and that “spiritual
birth is not the result of human initiative, but of supernatural origin” (472).
Finally, in footnote sixty of the same page, he gives mild approval to the idea
that regeneration logically precedes faith, followed by a denial of the entire
discussion by an appeal to the fact that John did not intend there to be any
temporal order of events in the application of salvation. In spite of this last
qualification, the fact that Kostenberger saw the need to address on the basis
of his interaction with the text of John’s Gospel the question of the logical
(not temporal) order in which salvation is applied is very telling. Does the
text itself imply the need to address the question of an ordo salutis, which is typically a question addressed by Systematic
Theology? Surprisingly, he seems to miss the rather obvious observation (in
light of the rest of this book) that “seeing” in John refers to the removal of
spiritual blindness through faith in Christ (John 9:35-41). Therefore, when
Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless he is first born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, the necessary conclusion is that
the new birth is necessary in order to believe in Jesus Christ. In this case,
admitting an order salutis would have
helped and clarified exegesis rather than hindered it.

The point is that it seems
unhealthy to detach Biblical Theology (or any other branch of theological
study) from the rest of the theological disciplines. While it is necessary and
valuable to treat each discipline separately, it is neither helpful nor
desirable to sever them completely. Exegesis and Biblical Theology without at
least some Systematic Theology and the analogia
scriptura with other biblical authors is like building the foundation of a
structure followed by the skeleton of the building without ever finishing the
project. The work may be stable and able to sustain a magnificent building, but
it will ever remain incomplete and unfit for use.After all, is it not our doctrinal and
systematic conclusions that we drawn from exegesis and Biblical Theology that
make us Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopaleans, and, even more
fundamentally, Christians?

This book is a necessary
starting point for any serious study of Johanine theology. It should be
particularly helpful to those who plan to teach or to preach through the Gospel
of John as a preliminary study. Ministers who struggle to find the time to plan
ahead would do well to read this book either before or during a sermon series
on John’s Gospel or letters, thus providing them with a theological overview
and plan that will provide them with direction through the whole book.
Moreover, Kostenberger is a devout believer in Jesus Christ and his closing
sentence is worth citing: “Thank you for joining me on this journey, embarked
on not primarily by a scholar seeking to master the gospel but by a worshiper
and disciple longing to be mastered by it. Soli
Deo Gloria!” (567).

The review above was first published in The Mid-America Journal of Theology, vol. 22 (2011): 209-21.